On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, let forget about bunny_foo_foo, require_gem and all that, let's
> heard the complains.
The basic complaint is the require filename cannot be determined from
the gem name.
I have made most of the counter arguments to them as this group has to
me. Many of the group have perl background, and so, compared to CPAN,
they view rubygems as broken since rubygems does not have the
equivalent ability of determining the load file from the module name.
> 1st: who are the users that are complaining to you? what is your role
> in the company or what?
n/a
> 2nd: users using these gems should at least know how to use the gems.
I agree, to a point. I can usually find out what to include within 30
seconds. But it is annoying to have to re-look up require points.
You'll understand as you get older. :)
> 3th: even we implement bunny_foo_foo in RubyGems your users using
> Debian and installing "the debian way" or any other bizarre distro
> maybe will not depend on RubyGems.
Well, not exactly. #bunny_foo_foo knows the gem name, hence it knows
the path to the require file.
> 4th: These non-standard or non-standarized "requires" should be
> forwarded to each gem author or teams and not being handled by
> RubyGems.
Maybe.
> 5th: If the projects are OSS (which most of the gems are), contribute,
> send patches or Fork (in case of a Git repository or even using
> GitHub).
Premature. First diagnose. Second, prescribe.
--
Jim Freeze